< October 28 | October 30 > |
---|
The result was speedy delete. Dakota 00:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
This article proposed for deletion with a folowing reason: "Advertising for a non-notable wiki that is being spammed on multiple wikis. Same text has 131 hits in Google". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sasha l ( talk • contribs) 13:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC). reply
The result was no consensus. W.marsh 22:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Very small gathering of vacuum tube audio enthusiasts. Appears to have little media coverage, and the article itself indicates it only draws about 100 participants per year. ghits: [1] NMChico24 23:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC) reply
*Delete. Spam. Article was created by the user which is mentioned in the article, so the conflict of interests is obvious. But if it is cleaned up, maybe it could stay.
Encyclopaedia Editing Dude
20:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable high school
TJ Spyke
00:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
reply
*Please note:
WP:SCHOOLS has been rejected as a policy, so please no not base your votes on that and consider changing your vote if you based it on
WP:SCHOOLS.
More precisely,
User:JoshuaZ added a "rejected" tag to
WP:SCHOOLS at 19:46, 29 October 2006. I am not certain that adding the tag at this time was appropriate. --
TruthbringerToronto (
Talk |
contribs)
05:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
reply
*Weak keep - at least one alumna (is that the feminine?) is notable, regardless of the fact I wish she wasn't. Independent sources should be scared up at some point, but I'd say it gets over the proposed
WP:SCHOOL as is.
BigHaz -
Schreit mich an
00:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
reply
Notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 00:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Material from self-published sources, whether published online or as a book or pamphlet, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves, so long as there is no reasonable doubt who wrote it, and where the material is:
- relevant to the self-publisher's notability;
- not contentious;
- not unduly self-serving or self-aggrandizing;
- about the subject only and not about third parties or events not directly related to the subject;
The reputation of the self-publisher is a guide to whether the material rises to the level of notability at all.
On that basis, a school's website can be a useful source of information. Sometimes school administrators lie or try to cover things up, but in general the enrolment figures or the history of the school are likely to be described accurately if incompletely on the site. (By "incompletely", I mean that a school's own history may ignore or gloss over past misconduct by students, teachers or administrators that may be relevant.) -- TruthbringerToronto ( Talk | contribs) 06:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Keep In general, High schools are inherently notable, this one is such a school. -- Librarianofages 21:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete - and Ray isn't notable either. DS 21:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Nomination; ed. DB] delete - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devajyoti Ray 4.18GB 23:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep - Yomangani talk 10:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Asserts notability (and Alexa rank is 23,655, not too terrible), but only source is a broken link to the Sports Illustrated website. NawlinWiki 00:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete CSD G7 [4], A7 -- Samir धर्म 07:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Contested prod - non-notable musician, clearly fails WP:MUSIC, 15 year old kid with one self-published record and a Myspace. Stormie 00:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. — Xezbeth 18:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
ZERO google hits! Entirely non-notable wiki failing pretty much every guideline/policy. Pretty much just an advert for a site that hasn't even made Google yet. Wickethewok 01:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Reply: So, you are seeking to eliminate a page to a site that is new...simply because it is new? Which guideline/policies does the page fail, other than being new? -- MBurbank 01:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. W.marsh 00:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
The page history reveals that this began as an autobiography to promote the subject in his election bid. While the page has since been cleaned up, the subject is a non-notable candidate; standing in a seat he has no chance of winning. While I am happy to have pages for candidates with a reasonable chance of winning, Anderton needs a swing of around 25%. It is true that he briefly came to attention with his racist remarks, it did not blow up into a scandal, and he has since faded back into obscurity. Teiresias84 01:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete - the existence of other similar articles isn't a basis for keeping this one. Yomangani talk 10:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
I think there is nothing wrong with this article
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable charity organisation. No reliable sources found on Google. Contested prod. MER-C 01:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete - Yomangani talk 10:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
non notable church in fabulous Windsor, Ontario Brianyoumans 03:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Article fails WP:NOT Wikipedia is not a dictionary, WP:NEO this is a phrase from a television show that is not in common usage. L0b0t 03:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge to Westpoint Corporation. Yomangani talk 10:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Either real estate spam or conflict of interest. No assertion of notability. Hús ö nd 03:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 06:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Disambiguation page with two entries, both red links. Dooms Day34 9 04:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. No links turn up in a Google search for ATL 2, no IMDb entry. The article claims T.I. is confirmed to appear in the film, but there is no source, or even any indication of a script, director, etc. for the film. FuriousFreddy 04:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Non notable online community with 30 original members and 40 active ones right now. Article includes list of current members, and can't be speedied because it claims notability in the fact that they won The Honor League. Prod removes without comment. [10] -- ReyBrujo 04:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus, so kept by default. Yomangani talk 10:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
It seems to not meet any of the criteria under WP:SOFTWARE. GinaDana 05:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Page is still quite new (far from complete). Subject is GPL software used in many Linux and FreeBSD distros. Not clear how it should be categorized. Could be as Software Application or as Software Component, as it is both a stand-alone command-line tool and a compiled-in part of ImageMagick
The result was keep in a somewhat speedy manner, the disambig is used for several articles. The ikiroid ( talk· desk· Advise me) 20:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete all link is a red links. this page is not disambiguation. Zanghgn 05:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete CSD A7 -- Samir धर्म 07:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Don't think this is quite speedy deletion material, but nn all the same. Also huge POV problems - Amarkov babble 05:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Was on Speedy as (A7 - notability not asserted). I think it should go on AfD Alex Bakharev 05:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. — Cryptic 12:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Article is about a documentary created by Jed Riffe; the article was created by User:Jedriffe. Violates WP:WWIN and WP:VAIN. "Resources" section copied from here. Much of article written in the first person suggests copy-and-paste. AED 06:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 13:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Finishing an incomplete nomination by User:81.104.170.167, should now be complete. No position yet from me. Daniel Olsen 06:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Punkmorten 23:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
The article purports to be dedicated to a list of top actresses published by an Indian film magazine since 2003. However, the article doesn't give any of the lists, but consists of a lead para arguing that Rani Mukerji is the top actress in Bollywood, followed by slighting mentions of other actresses. As it stands, the article is biased, and an attack on the other actresses and should be deleted for that reason. (The creator of the article has been linking this article to other actress pages, as a subtle attack on their standing vis-a-vis Rani.) However, even if the article were what the title would lead one to expect, a list of the ten winners for each year, it would still be trivial and non-notable. Newspapers and magazines publish lists of favorites all the time, none of which rate WP articles. Nobel Prize winners yes, Filmfare magazine, no. Zora 06:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedily deleted as a non-notable website, WP:WEB refers. (aeropagitica) 10:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable gambling website. Fails WP:WEB. A Google search for "'Real Soccer Tips' -wikipedia" offers 75 results. The first link is the official site, and the remaining metions come from "partners" or "link circle" sections of other sports betting websites. The absence of verifiable information from third-party sources suggest that this article is spam, and should be dealt with as such. Consequentially 06:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
This is an unencyclopedic how-to article, and in my opinion of insufficient quality to warrant a transwiki. Caffeinepuppy 06:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 14:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
This page was prodded and de-prodded, yet I don't think it is notable enough (Googling "DP1 Dennis Palatov" gets only 224 hits). Scobell302 06:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete per CSD G3 -- Samir धर्म 07:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The usual hoax by this user. See [27] Mad Jack 07:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete CSD G3 -- Samir धर्म 07:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The usual hoax by User:Smallvilleboy. See [28] Mad Jack 07:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 00:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Contested speedy and prod. Student internet video that cites as its notability mention in Re:Genenerator magazine and on YouTube's top 50 art/animation videos. Unfortunately, I don't think that meets the encyclopedic threshold. Samir धर्म 07:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
That also eliminates the IMDb link as potential indicator of notability. Your second link goes to Danielle Belton Online, the personal blog of an entertainment reporter for the Bakersfield Californian. While this might be an acceptable source per WP:RS, I'm going to argue against it. WP:RS makes exception for self-published sources if "a well-known, professional researcher writing within their field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material." I would not consider Danielle Belton a well-known professional journalist. The fact that she writes for the Bakersfield Californian is somewhat irrelevant, because that newspaper did not give column inches to the movie. To say that she gives the movie notability because she talks about it and she writes for the Californian is an appeal to authority. Her statement was not published by the newspaper, and thus relies only on her authority alone, which isn't exactly that of a national-level entertainment reporter. Consequentially 04:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply"Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as sources. This is in part because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them, and in part because there is no editorial oversight or third-party fact-checking. In addition, in the case of wikis, the content of an article could change at any moment.The same reasoning applies to trivia on sites such as IMDb or FunTrivia.com, where the degree of editorial oversight is unknown."
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. Wikipedia is not, nor should become, a gazeteer. As the list stands only two street warrant an article. This, if needed is more suited to a category. See also the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Streets in Malta Nuttah68 08:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. — Cryptic 11:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Blatant advert by user:Lloydrognan for this Artist of the Wild West. With the twist the guy is dead. Assume advert by his estate. -- RHaworth 08:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 02:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
This individual may not meet WP:BIO or WP:NOTE, so rather than WP:PROD'ing it, I have nominated this at AFD. SunStar Net 08:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Kara Edwards meets the following criteria from WP:NOTE
Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions.
Kara portrayed three major roles in the last third of Dragon Ball Z: Videl, Goten and Gotenks.
A large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following. Again, DBZ's fan base is large, even though it started out as a "cult" following.
Kara also meets the following criteria from WP:Biographies of living persons
Verifiability: All information in the article was gleaned from Kara's official webpages, major metropolitan newspaper articles, or through conversation with Kara Edwards herself.
Neutral point of view: Although I am a fan of Kara's work, I did my best to make the page neutral. All biographical and career information was, again, provided by Kara Edwards herself with no embellishment; I had to add some "writing" to her resumé so that it would be more than just a bald list of her jobs, with no timeframe. Some might disagree with my calling the "Tanner in the Morning" show "popular", but by virtue of ratings and community response, it WAS/IS popular; therefore, I feel this invalidates any claim of non-neutrality.
I hold that any creation of a page that does not exist could be said to SUBJECTIVELY involve a certain amount of "original research", although this would really be closer to "fact gathering". There was NO ORIGINAL REASEARCH involved in my creation of this page; everything on it(Kara's basic biographical information, her filmography, her broadcast career, details of her wedding) was a matter of public record. DiScOrD tHe LuNaTiC 12:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The "through conversation with Kara Edwards herself" refers only to the exact date of her wedding. If it makes any difference, I've removed it. Now the ONLY information on the page is from her official webpages or major metropolitan newspaper articles. DiScOrD tHe LuNaTiC 19:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. DS 21:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Listcruft created by a single-purpose account to accomodate Devajyoti Ray's In Despair; should be replaced by the category Category:Indian paintings. Firstly, the title is subjective (no wonder it has been tagged with {{unreferenced}} and {{npov}}). Secondly, the article has been merged into Indian painting. None of the links to the listed paintings actually work. Delete. utcursch | talk 08:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. utcursch | talk 08:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Contested prod for a web forum that doesn't establish notability. Alexa rank is in the 500,000s. — Xezbeth 08:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Previously speedied as advertisement, not improved since recreation Seraphimblade 09:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect. W.marsh 00:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. Insufficiently notable as has done nothing except for exist QuiteUnusual 10:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
This was deleted back in December 2005, and little seems to have changed. Neologism, I couldn't find a single relevant google hit, despite the article's claim that the internet is spreading its popularity. — Xezbeth 10:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Orphan article with multiple breaches of WP:NOT; unencyclopedic. Userfied.. kingboyk 10:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Was correctly tagged for speedy deletion, but the user writing the article has clearly got hold of the wrong end of the wikistick as has spent many hours working on a mix between an article, a wikiproject, a list and a private web page. Because of all that work, there might be something to salvage here. But I don't think so. Opinions? ➨ ЯEDVERS 10:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 22:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
This list has a ridiculous scope: "guitarists for whom there is an article in Wikipedia, or who are mentioned in articles on bands". That's gonna be 100,000 people then? This is redundant to categories and is just clutter. Delete. kingboyk 10:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
I would like to add to this nomination the following related pages:
*
List of musicians and the myriad of other lists branching from this.
All of these (and I'm sure many, many others) suffer from the faults mentioned in the nomination. A list, to be encyclopaedic, must be exhaustive, it must have finite boundaries (e.g. List of the United States, or List of Nobel Peace Prize Laureates) so that every possible item is included. This cannot possibly happen with any of these lists. Delete. Emeraude 10:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge to List of cities in Malta. (There seems to be an argument for merging that article to Malta, so you may want to skip the intermediate step.) Yomangani talk 10:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
The content of the article is already included in other articles. The article is highly unstructured and frankly pointless. Vide talk page of the article. Maltesedog 10:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect is the logical thing here. Guy 12:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Someone suggested this for AFD and I looked it over. It is completely not notable and fails WP:WEB. Since "last measure" is a common phrase and whenever I search google I find it is case insensitive, I searched lastmeasure.com -wikipedia and found 283 google hits, mostly from people spamming the shock site around. It has no media references or anything. It also fails WP:DENY. Anomo 10:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
leave it i kinda like it lol its pretty cool — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
128.193.238.6 (
talk •
contribs) 00:26, 31 October 2006
The result was delete. W.marsh 14:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Utterly non-notable and unverifiable article about the antics of bored teenagers at the CTYI summer camp. Demiurge 11:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Also User:Demiurge look at the CTY page. The have a section on traditions and culture. And if you try and delete that I wouldnt recommend trying it. Exiledone 14:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Punkmorten 23:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Non notable sports event. Contested prod QuiteUnusual 12:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. The article flagrantly violates WP:NOR. The page on the history of Clergy Sexual abuse covers the topic more than well enough. The argument for keeping this article fails to look at policy, argument for deletion is slightly stronger, and yes, I do anticipate a WP:DRV. Yanksox 14:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Fork, linkfarm, author is a single-purpose account with an axe to grind. - CrazyRussian talk/ email 12:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
--Comments by alleged socks-- The following comments were made by recently created accounts with few edits other than to the article in question or this AFD.
email 02:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
WP:BIO - CrazyRussian talk/ email 12:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect back to The Boondocks (TV series) where this character is already mentioned. Concerns about the validity of the info here means I will not merge anything. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
The page has been previously deleted and redirected as shown here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colonel H. Stinkmeaner. As the rationale for that discussion, Stinkmeaner is at best going to be a recurring character (judging by the titles of Season 2) but so far has only appeared in one episode and has never appeared in the comics strip. I vote for redirecting this Boondocks-cruft to The Boondocks (TV series). Gdo01 12:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to The Boondocks (TV series). I'm just adding the tags since I've no idea where to merge it in the target article. - Bobet 21:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
This page is essentially a reopening of Nigga moment which was deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nigga moment but was later redirected. Despite being applicable to many situations, this neologism has not caught on and no sources are given in the article so this falls under Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. As suggested by the previous discussion, I vote for deletion or a redirect. Gdo01 12:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. W.marsh 22:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Can it be said that someone only three years old is an 'actor'? The page on Aaron Aulsebrook-Walker (also an infant appearing in Neighbours) was deleted for just this reason and I don't see Dammer-Smith's case being any different Analog Kid 12:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 02:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
This article was previously deleted through AfD here. A DRV consensus overturned in light of new evidence, for which, see the DRV. This is a procedural relisting, so I abstain. Xoloz 12:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Reason in a nutshell: This is in all likelihood a paid translation of an autobiography of a person with no verifiable accomplishments.
This article appeared on multiple major Wikipedias on the same day in precisely the same form and shape (compare de.wiki, pl.wiki, fr.wiki, hu.wiki, nl.wiki, sk.wiki). Other than de.wiki where the text originated, on some Wikipedias there was a substub on this person prior to that day, but it did not establish the notability of the character other than by having several interwiki links (which is probably how the substub eluded deletion).
On most Wikipedias, the translation appeared as the only major contribution of a new user named Djiggy or IP 84.113.1.108. The author tagged the edit as "translation from german", even though on some Wikipedias, he explicitly said he can't speak the language he supposedly translated the article to (see userboxes: hu:user:Djiggy)
The person described in the article is herself ungooglable, so is her "proper" name ( [29]). It is also impossible to find any references to the international prize she won in Yugoslavia - see here, which makes one wonder how notable could this throphy be.
All in all, it seems like a promotional article of a person that does not seem to have any verifiable claim to notability.
I'm a sysop on pl.wiki, making a guest appearance to share our findings with others. Our AfD for this article is here. lcamtuf 13:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. An astounding ammount of argumentation spun up by one user, but no evidence that the subject actually meets WP:BIO... this article is in question on nearly every Wiki. W.marsh 15:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gal Rasché for a primer on the author before voting.
This is a yet another multiple-Wiki contribution by Djiggy / 84.113.1.108.
This person's notability seems to be impossible to verify (
0 in Google), which is odd for a modern, acclaimed composer of international fame, and a headnoted member of several professional organizations; if you Google for him without the middle name, Anatoli Ivanov yields a couple of film producers and other possibly notable persons, but nothing that would match this bio.
The ISBN referenced in the article seems to be bogus ( [34], [35]).
Update: as noted below in my response to
Djiggy, contrary to his claims, this article was deleted on de.wiki after AfD in January (links below), then he attempted to re-create it (which resulted in speedy deletion, again references below), and the same day finally managed to post it under a different name with one admin deleting it, but restoring it several hours later (with no comment and no talk page entry).
lcamtuf 14:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep for obvious reasons — FireFox ( talk) 14:38, 29 October 2006
Poorly written article about a fictional city that people are led to believe exists. ZERO GOOGLE HITS -- Railer 138 14:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
![]() | This is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Tiger Woods. Please do not modify it. The result was keep. The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. |
The result was delete. W.marsh 22:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Comic fails WP:WEB. Fails to assert notability. -- Brad Beattie (talk) 14:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. W.marsh 00:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
At the very least, non-notable. At the worst, complete bollocks. A Google search returns 616 results, and I think that most of those are due to a book named Boltzmon, which is possibly what the article is based on. A Google Scholar search returns 3 hits, all non-notable. The Arxiv returns nothing. Mike Peel 14:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Yanksox 15:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Hoax. Totally made up nonsense. Iron C hris | (talk) 14:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. W.marsh 14:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Neither verifiable not notable, also fails WP:NFT Demiurge 14:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Exiledone 14:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Exiledone 14:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. W.marsh 17:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Extremely biased, and subject is not very notable. Unfortunately, too notable for me to be comfortable speedy tagging it. Amarkov babble 15:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
This article is about an executive order, the legal details of which are of no particular importance or notability. There are currently relatively few articles about executive orders (full list here: [ [50]]) and those that do exist are about orders of a great deal more significance (domestically and internationally) than this one. This was a very troublesome article for a time, due to the fact that it was based on highly erroneous information, from a disreputable source. Once the facts were established, and all of the POV content was removed, one is left with an article of no particular significance. I suggest, therefore, that it be deleted. Charles 15:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep, no chance of getting this deleted. Punkmorten 18:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
I do not want to be in this encyclopaedia. Sophie Ellis-Bextor 15:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was So, let it be speedied... done. Tawker 21:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable person. No hits on google or other search engines, and the links to the "clubs" are usually links simply to towns, not actual teams JCO312 14:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete, WP:CSD G4. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 02:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Possible original research or hoax. Colbber 15:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
I originally prodded for the article being in Polish. It is not now, so I had to bring this to AfD. Still seems to be useless to me. Amarkov babble 15:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete as non-notable band and recreation of deleted content. Creator should go to Deletion review if he disagrees with the deletion of his article. A ecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 16:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Just some local church band. Self confessed case of WP:AUTO. -- IslaySolomon | talk 16:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Nonnotable; vanity -- 165 google hits for "jewfro.org", 151 not from Wikipedia. The page doesn't cite any of its claims of media attention; it itself says "Strangely, it is quite a feat to find any record of these today", very suspiciously. -- Adam Atlas 16:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The following votes were posted by users who have only made edits related to jewfro.org, and therefore may be sock puppets or single-purpose accounts:
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Disputed ProD. Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. Made up in school one day. Unverified. -- IslaySolomon | talk 16:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Yanksox 14:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
WP:BIO, author is SPA with axe to grind. - CrazyRussian talk/ email 17:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Withdrawn by nominator. ➨ ЯEDVERS 11:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply
WP:BIO, author is SPA with an axe to grind. -
CrazyRussian
talk/
email
17:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result was deleted by Zoe: "No claims of notability". Zetawoof( ζ) 20:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Entry from a non-relevant company, only containing contact information. Sounds like advertising and might meet WP:SPAM dockingman Talk 17:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
This is not a SPAM
This company is becoming a major player in the Fast growing Pharmaceuticals industry of Bangladesh.
Not only in Bangladesh but Internationally.
So it needs to be added to wikipedia.
So it should not be deteted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Miahap ( talk • contribs)
The result was keep. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 06:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
User:Mapletip have requested this article to be deleted with the following reason: Dead software, website, and company. This is a re-nomination, please check the previous entry in here. AQu01rius ( User | Talk | Websites) 18:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was merge into one article, I guess it'll be at Mercedes-Benz Mixed Tapes. - Bobet 22:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Mercedes-Benz is certainly notable, but is everything they do notable by association? These mixtapes are a series of MP3 collections hosted on the company's official site, consisting of — and here's the main problem — songs primarily by unsigned artists. That means it's not particularly useful to list them on Wikipedia, since there's no way to discuss the musicians in any sort of context, since no verifiable sources have really discussed what they've done or influenced in the music world (other than "they submitted their demo tapes to Mercedes-Benz"). (The one notable exception I've found out of the two articles seems to be Tosca from 11.) Also, the past Mixed Tapes aren't even available on the site anymore. Unint 18:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. W.marsh 22:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Superficially a candidate for Wiktionary, only not in this form and not without references. Previously {{ prod}}'d, tag removed without comment. Wikipedia is not a dictionary of Hawaiian slang. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
KEEP IT. its a real word in Hawaii.
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 13:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
non-notable number; see WP:NUMBER; two weak claims are not enough: It's a Fermat number, not a Fermat prime, and there are infinitely many of those. The fact that it's the highest unsigned 2-bit int is already in 10000 (number). Septentrionalis 19:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 13:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Number N = 65535 is a number of the form .
1. How many n < 107 do NOT have this property in common with Number N? If it's too computationally intensive to calculate, a heuristic estimate is acceptable, or even a rough guesstimate. These are the starting points.
9999996 points.
2. Has a professional mathematician written a peer-reviewed paper or book about this property that specifically mentions Number N?
No, at least none that I can find. -4 points.
3. In a list sorted in ascending order, at what position k does Number N occur? Deduct k from Question 2 points.
65535 occurs at position 4. -8 points.
4. Might f(N) = False in a different base b?
5. Does the sequence of numbers with f(N) = True in Sloane's OEIS specifically list Number N in its Sequence or Signed field?
Yes, it's (sequence A051179 in the OEIS). 51171 points.
6. What keywords does the sequence have in its Keywords field?
nonn, easy and nice. 102352 points.
7. How many points are there?
Positive 102352, the property in relation to the number is interesting.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
This is just another arbitrary ranking/list of perceived music quality produced by a media outlet. There is no evidence that anyone finds this list to be authoritative and it will in all likelihood be forgotten in 5 years. youngamerican ( ahoy hoy) 19:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Amateur filmmakers. No assertion of notability. -- RHaworth 19:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. W.marsh 22:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Redundant, unverifiable and possibly in-universe original research. Each of the games already have its own article (as well as an umbrella article) to describe the story. Additionally, plot summaries are prohibited by WP:NOT. Combination 19:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Doesn't seem to meet WP:WEB, WP:V, WP:RS. Flash games hosting sites with no claims of notability and no reliable sources given/found. Delete. Wickethewok 19:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
This article is being proposed for deletion because it fails several criteria in WP:BIO. This is clearly a vanity page. Stangbat 19:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. W.marsh 22:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. Appears to be a boat with little or no historical significance beyond that the creator's grandfather served on board (all respects to him). Stifle ( talk) 19:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. W.marsh 21:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Mod that doesn't seem to particularly notable. Fails WP:V and WP:RS. Delete per lack of reliable sources. Wickethewok 19:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete as a non-notable programme. (aeropagitica) 22:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable programme on Channel 4 and listcruft. tgheretford ( talk) 19:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was löschen. - Mailer Diablo 13:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
seems to be a fake ported from the German Wikipedia Temp0001 19:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Link to German deletion discussion: [54] Temp0001 19:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete as a non-notable musician, WP:Music refers. (aeropagitica) 22:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
non notable artist. Seems self-promotion by that kid (two newly registered users whose only contribs have been creating this article and spamming its name on the Ambient music overview article) -- LimoWreck 20:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Per WP:HOAX, WP:NFT, zero ghits exc Wikipedia mirrors, unverifiable Tubezone 20:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete as a non-notable subject. (aeropagitica) 22:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Article is about a single song, which does not seem to have enough information for its own article. Contested prod. Amarkov babble 20:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. The author can develop and republish the article in a user sub-page when they find more reliable sources in order to reference information contained in the article. (aeropagitica) 22:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
I could not find any information on him, although I'm closer to a weak delete than just regular delete. Contested prod. Amarkov babble 20:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
KEEP Obviously biased but i would really appreciate my early post being kept. I had miniscule info to work with and i've left all the details on the article. If Brett was mentioned online i wouldn't have written this, i thought he made just enough impact to warrant a mention, i don't think it's fair to delete because he isn't in a google search. thanks all the same...please be gentle, suggestions VERY welcome Stuedgar 22:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC) Stuedgar reply
Again the best i can give you is what the text book says, which is New York galleries, nothing on current residence of work. I think he makes it into the text as much for the life story as his output in honesty, but if i don't overstate his importance and I give the solid details i think he is revelant enough for a short mention. No hard feelings if it HAS to go but i'd like it to stay. thanks for the suggestions Emeraude. I'm aware he hasn't had the impact for a mention in google searches but i'd be over the moon for his history to make the transition from text to web via Wikipedia. If anyone else has come across him in their fields or studies, or thinks he is interesting enough as a footnote for a quick mentions please lend your support. Regards— Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuedgar ( talk • contribs)
Apologies, just desperate for him to be online somewhere Stuedgar 11:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC) stuedgar reply
When can i expect a decision/ make a final, desperate plea? Stuedgar 16:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)stuedgar reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Contested speedy... procedural Tawker 21:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Let's look at the sources again:
These are quite mainstream publications for me.-- Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 11:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply
[69] this one is quite a source on Kerry Bolton founder of discussed cult (OLHP is mentioned in the context of his belief system), so the ideology can be sourced now. Same can be said about evolution of OLHP into Black Order [70] -- Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 11:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete as listcruft. (aeropagitica) 22:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
As to whether the scope of the list is too narrow or too broad ( Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Appropriate_topics_for_lists): This list is not a set complement, its criteria being inclusive ("everything with property X") rather than exclusive; and it is not, contrary to what it is stated above by TrackerTV, infinite, since the total number of songs in the world is finite. Wwwwolf's problems with the article lie in whether neologisms constitute nonsense, and are addressed by sidestepping the problem entirely and relying upon sources that have already done the work, such as those previously mentioned, rather than original research by Wikipedia editors that then has to be argued about. Quite a lot of the article can be retained even if all of the entries that cannot currently be sourced are removed, and the sources contain much that isn't already in the article. Maintaining the list is a matter of finding, citing, and using additional sources. Keep. Uncle G 15:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was SPEEDY DELETED Identical text exists at Kirk Jackson, now on AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kirk Jackson.
Exactly 2 ghits for "kirk jackson" "steady state", may have been a co-author on 2 papers on the theory. Seraphimblade 21:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. W.marsh 17:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Non notable person; he was an early settler of Indiana and a soldier, but that's about it. If you look closely, much of the article isn't even about him; his only connection to the murder case, for instance, is that his daughter was a witness. Brianyoumans 21:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete Non-notable. Seems to be full of tangential padding. ALR 20:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
nn writer for local papers Seraphimblade 22:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Supposedly a planned show on HBO. The listed fan site claims HBO has confirmed it, but no such announcement has been made by HBO. Google turns up a handful of hits for a youtube video that has not attracted any attention at all. Looks like vanity. Likely hoax. At minimum, unverifiable, no Reliable Sources Fan-1967 22:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
This smells like a hoax, as the PRODder and the other, agreeing editor both suggest. But I find at [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1724272/posts this] slightly off-the-wall thread from an unreliable source an actual mention of this person. That's the only thing that Google finds, however. Can someone think of a way of working out if this person did actually exist or not? And, if they did, if they need an article? - Splash - tk 22:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Supposed planned Disney Channel movie, starring the Zack and Cody kids, that seems to be totally unknown to everyone else on the web. Sources and Hoax tags removed without comment (and without providing sources. Author has a bad history on this sort of thing. Possible hoax, at minimum unverifiable. Fan-1967 22:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Nonsense vandalism from vandal account. Claims made in the article, such as that he coauthored the steady state theory with Hoyle and Bondi are false. Joke 22:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 21:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Non notable former candidate for Congress, lost his party's primary. Calwatch 22:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus to delete, but adding a tag for references... normally I wouldn't check as closer, but there do seem to be a lot of reliable sources on this guy, they just aren't cited. W.marsh 17:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Was PRODded as "notability", but the article asserts a positive shedload thereof. It might all be trumped-stuff of course, adn there are no links. Just the sort of thing that a keen AfDer might want to dig around for... - Splash - tk 22:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Nomination for deletion Suspected hoax student society article created by single purpose acacount. If it really could be verified, it may be notable for its surviving for so long but I can't find anything on google or google books (it should be expected to be mentioned in tourist guides at least). Never heard of it during my four years at Cam. Bwithh 22:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete as a non-notable student group, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 22:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Nomination for Deletion Non-encyclopedically notable student society which was only established in 2003. Cambridge has a strong comedy tradition, but this just not comparable to the Cambridge Footlights, or equivalents at say, U.Chicago or even Bristol. The original creator of the article has put up an pre-emptive defence of the society here - I encourage people to read it. My rebuttal is that while Cambridge may be famous for comedy, ICE has only beeen around for 3 years and is unlikely to have achieved a remarkable level of fame (if it has, then show us); coverage in student newspapers and stalls at the fresher's fair are not acceptable or credible indicators of encyclopedic notability (and Wikipedia is not a campus info booth). An equivalence is also claimed with the Oxford Imps, but this Dark Blue group appears to be significantly more accomplished than ICE (and I'm not very sure Imps is encyclopedically notable either). Bwithh 22:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
PRODded as "Backup musician with no independent accomplishments. Due to the nature of his work there does not appear to be any reliable sources to provide required verifiability of article contents.", but given the long list of famous names, he must be worth an AfD. I'd caution against notability by osmosis, however. - Splash - tk 22:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Vanity article about losing political candidate. Calwatch 22:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Promotional piece for a book that has only just been released. -- BillC 22:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was null. Articles for deletion is for debating deletion, but the issue here seems to be whether it should be a redirect or not. Take the debate to the talk page. Zetawoof( ζ) 06:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The article had been previously nominated here over a year ago and the vote was closed as a "merge and redirect". Since then, apparently the article has continued on until User:A Man In Black reverted the article to a redirect to Street Fighter III. I personally feel that a redirect is neither sufficient nor informative; Q is a playable character only in "3rd Strike", and he is not a hidden, unlockable or secret character. My vote is Strong Keep. Danny Lilithborne 23:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete as a non-notable website, WP:WEB refers. (aeropagitica) 22:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable forum/website; fails WP:WEB. The article claims that it was popular in the past, though it has no references or proof of such notability, and the current state of the website suggests that it is incredibly non-notable. --- RockMFR 23:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
2C2 It appears that you do not have Java enabled in your browser's configuration. Please enable Java, then reload this page. If you do have java enabled and still are receiving this page, please click which browser you are using to enter Cybertown. Netscape version 4.0 or later Internet Explorer version 4.0 or later Other
That's what I got. Won't even work with Javascript disabled. Obvously not notable if they can't even get their site to work. Anomo 12:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete as Listcruft. (aeropagitica) 22:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 22:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Notable but adequately covered in Access control list, not good candidate for merge/redirect. Seraphimblade 23:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Proto:: type 12:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Note: This article has had a previous AfD discussion, which can be found here.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
User:J intela, a 15 year old who claims to be "unrivaled in all arias of Sciance and Social studies," created this article for original research that he was unable to add at List of dictators, introducing the very problems the editors at that list have tried very hard to avoid. For example, his claim that Cypselus was the first dictator of all time, although without explanation he has now discovered an earlier one. The list largely repeats List of ancient Greek tyrants, but also includes some medieval Italians for no apparent reasons.
Historians do not generally use the term "dictator" for people who governed before the Atlantic Revolutions. Prior to that autocratic leaders were the norm, and any attempt to list such leaders would include nearly all of them.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable. Article created 18 May 2006, tagged for expansion 6 August 2006 - no development. Imperial College website staff directory lists him as a Research Assistant, [72] and his own website [73] confirms he's a "post-doctoral researcher ", so not notable. Emeraude 00:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 17:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
"British film" is a subjective term (does it refer to the company, initial release location, writer, director, actors?). That means that the best you can do is list these as comedies, which shouldn't be a list at all because it is too broad. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_British_comedy_films for a similar debate. Stellis 00:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. Subject is not notable, autobiography. Person, companies, and achievements all appear non-notable. - Malfoyl 00:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply
< October 28 | October 30 > |
---|
The result was speedy delete. Dakota 00:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
This article proposed for deletion with a folowing reason: "Advertising for a non-notable wiki that is being spammed on multiple wikis. Same text has 131 hits in Google". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sasha l ( talk • contribs) 13:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC). reply
The result was no consensus. W.marsh 22:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Very small gathering of vacuum tube audio enthusiasts. Appears to have little media coverage, and the article itself indicates it only draws about 100 participants per year. ghits: [1] NMChico24 23:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC) reply
*Delete. Spam. Article was created by the user which is mentioned in the article, so the conflict of interests is obvious. But if it is cleaned up, maybe it could stay.
Encyclopaedia Editing Dude
20:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable high school
TJ Spyke
00:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
reply
*Please note:
WP:SCHOOLS has been rejected as a policy, so please no not base your votes on that and consider changing your vote if you based it on
WP:SCHOOLS.
More precisely,
User:JoshuaZ added a "rejected" tag to
WP:SCHOOLS at 19:46, 29 October 2006. I am not certain that adding the tag at this time was appropriate. --
TruthbringerToronto (
Talk |
contribs)
05:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
reply
*Weak keep - at least one alumna (is that the feminine?) is notable, regardless of the fact I wish she wasn't. Independent sources should be scared up at some point, but I'd say it gets over the proposed
WP:SCHOOL as is.
BigHaz -
Schreit mich an
00:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
reply
Notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 00:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Material from self-published sources, whether published online or as a book or pamphlet, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves, so long as there is no reasonable doubt who wrote it, and where the material is:
- relevant to the self-publisher's notability;
- not contentious;
- not unduly self-serving or self-aggrandizing;
- about the subject only and not about third parties or events not directly related to the subject;
The reputation of the self-publisher is a guide to whether the material rises to the level of notability at all.
On that basis, a school's website can be a useful source of information. Sometimes school administrators lie or try to cover things up, but in general the enrolment figures or the history of the school are likely to be described accurately if incompletely on the site. (By "incompletely", I mean that a school's own history may ignore or gloss over past misconduct by students, teachers or administrators that may be relevant.) -- TruthbringerToronto ( Talk | contribs) 06:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Keep In general, High schools are inherently notable, this one is such a school. -- Librarianofages 21:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete - and Ray isn't notable either. DS 21:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Nomination; ed. DB] delete - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devajyoti Ray 4.18GB 23:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep - Yomangani talk 10:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Asserts notability (and Alexa rank is 23,655, not too terrible), but only source is a broken link to the Sports Illustrated website. NawlinWiki 00:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete CSD G7 [4], A7 -- Samir धर्म 07:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Contested prod - non-notable musician, clearly fails WP:MUSIC, 15 year old kid with one self-published record and a Myspace. Stormie 00:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. — Xezbeth 18:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
ZERO google hits! Entirely non-notable wiki failing pretty much every guideline/policy. Pretty much just an advert for a site that hasn't even made Google yet. Wickethewok 01:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Reply: So, you are seeking to eliminate a page to a site that is new...simply because it is new? Which guideline/policies does the page fail, other than being new? -- MBurbank 01:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. W.marsh 00:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
The page history reveals that this began as an autobiography to promote the subject in his election bid. While the page has since been cleaned up, the subject is a non-notable candidate; standing in a seat he has no chance of winning. While I am happy to have pages for candidates with a reasonable chance of winning, Anderton needs a swing of around 25%. It is true that he briefly came to attention with his racist remarks, it did not blow up into a scandal, and he has since faded back into obscurity. Teiresias84 01:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete - the existence of other similar articles isn't a basis for keeping this one. Yomangani talk 10:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
I think there is nothing wrong with this article
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable charity organisation. No reliable sources found on Google. Contested prod. MER-C 01:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete - Yomangani talk 10:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
non notable church in fabulous Windsor, Ontario Brianyoumans 03:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Article fails WP:NOT Wikipedia is not a dictionary, WP:NEO this is a phrase from a television show that is not in common usage. L0b0t 03:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge to Westpoint Corporation. Yomangani talk 10:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Either real estate spam or conflict of interest. No assertion of notability. Hús ö nd 03:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 06:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Disambiguation page with two entries, both red links. Dooms Day34 9 04:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. No links turn up in a Google search for ATL 2, no IMDb entry. The article claims T.I. is confirmed to appear in the film, but there is no source, or even any indication of a script, director, etc. for the film. FuriousFreddy 04:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Non notable online community with 30 original members and 40 active ones right now. Article includes list of current members, and can't be speedied because it claims notability in the fact that they won The Honor League. Prod removes without comment. [10] -- ReyBrujo 04:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus, so kept by default. Yomangani talk 10:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
It seems to not meet any of the criteria under WP:SOFTWARE. GinaDana 05:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Page is still quite new (far from complete). Subject is GPL software used in many Linux and FreeBSD distros. Not clear how it should be categorized. Could be as Software Application or as Software Component, as it is both a stand-alone command-line tool and a compiled-in part of ImageMagick
The result was keep in a somewhat speedy manner, the disambig is used for several articles. The ikiroid ( talk· desk· Advise me) 20:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete all link is a red links. this page is not disambiguation. Zanghgn 05:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete CSD A7 -- Samir धर्म 07:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Don't think this is quite speedy deletion material, but nn all the same. Also huge POV problems - Amarkov babble 05:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Was on Speedy as (A7 - notability not asserted). I think it should go on AfD Alex Bakharev 05:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. — Cryptic 12:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Article is about a documentary created by Jed Riffe; the article was created by User:Jedriffe. Violates WP:WWIN and WP:VAIN. "Resources" section copied from here. Much of article written in the first person suggests copy-and-paste. AED 06:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 13:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Finishing an incomplete nomination by User:81.104.170.167, should now be complete. No position yet from me. Daniel Olsen 06:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Punkmorten 23:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
The article purports to be dedicated to a list of top actresses published by an Indian film magazine since 2003. However, the article doesn't give any of the lists, but consists of a lead para arguing that Rani Mukerji is the top actress in Bollywood, followed by slighting mentions of other actresses. As it stands, the article is biased, and an attack on the other actresses and should be deleted for that reason. (The creator of the article has been linking this article to other actress pages, as a subtle attack on their standing vis-a-vis Rani.) However, even if the article were what the title would lead one to expect, a list of the ten winners for each year, it would still be trivial and non-notable. Newspapers and magazines publish lists of favorites all the time, none of which rate WP articles. Nobel Prize winners yes, Filmfare magazine, no. Zora 06:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedily deleted as a non-notable website, WP:WEB refers. (aeropagitica) 10:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable gambling website. Fails WP:WEB. A Google search for "'Real Soccer Tips' -wikipedia" offers 75 results. The first link is the official site, and the remaining metions come from "partners" or "link circle" sections of other sports betting websites. The absence of verifiable information from third-party sources suggest that this article is spam, and should be dealt with as such. Consequentially 06:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
This is an unencyclopedic how-to article, and in my opinion of insufficient quality to warrant a transwiki. Caffeinepuppy 06:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 14:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
This page was prodded and de-prodded, yet I don't think it is notable enough (Googling "DP1 Dennis Palatov" gets only 224 hits). Scobell302 06:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete per CSD G3 -- Samir धर्म 07:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The usual hoax by this user. See [27] Mad Jack 07:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete CSD G3 -- Samir धर्म 07:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The usual hoax by User:Smallvilleboy. See [28] Mad Jack 07:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 00:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Contested speedy and prod. Student internet video that cites as its notability mention in Re:Genenerator magazine and on YouTube's top 50 art/animation videos. Unfortunately, I don't think that meets the encyclopedic threshold. Samir धर्म 07:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
That also eliminates the IMDb link as potential indicator of notability. Your second link goes to Danielle Belton Online, the personal blog of an entertainment reporter for the Bakersfield Californian. While this might be an acceptable source per WP:RS, I'm going to argue against it. WP:RS makes exception for self-published sources if "a well-known, professional researcher writing within their field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material." I would not consider Danielle Belton a well-known professional journalist. The fact that she writes for the Bakersfield Californian is somewhat irrelevant, because that newspaper did not give column inches to the movie. To say that she gives the movie notability because she talks about it and she writes for the Californian is an appeal to authority. Her statement was not published by the newspaper, and thus relies only on her authority alone, which isn't exactly that of a national-level entertainment reporter. Consequentially 04:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply"Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as sources. This is in part because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them, and in part because there is no editorial oversight or third-party fact-checking. In addition, in the case of wikis, the content of an article could change at any moment.The same reasoning applies to trivia on sites such as IMDb or FunTrivia.com, where the degree of editorial oversight is unknown."
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. Wikipedia is not, nor should become, a gazeteer. As the list stands only two street warrant an article. This, if needed is more suited to a category. See also the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Streets in Malta Nuttah68 08:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. — Cryptic 11:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Blatant advert by user:Lloydrognan for this Artist of the Wild West. With the twist the guy is dead. Assume advert by his estate. -- RHaworth 08:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 02:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
This individual may not meet WP:BIO or WP:NOTE, so rather than WP:PROD'ing it, I have nominated this at AFD. SunStar Net 08:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Kara Edwards meets the following criteria from WP:NOTE
Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions.
Kara portrayed three major roles in the last third of Dragon Ball Z: Videl, Goten and Gotenks.
A large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following. Again, DBZ's fan base is large, even though it started out as a "cult" following.
Kara also meets the following criteria from WP:Biographies of living persons
Verifiability: All information in the article was gleaned from Kara's official webpages, major metropolitan newspaper articles, or through conversation with Kara Edwards herself.
Neutral point of view: Although I am a fan of Kara's work, I did my best to make the page neutral. All biographical and career information was, again, provided by Kara Edwards herself with no embellishment; I had to add some "writing" to her resumé so that it would be more than just a bald list of her jobs, with no timeframe. Some might disagree with my calling the "Tanner in the Morning" show "popular", but by virtue of ratings and community response, it WAS/IS popular; therefore, I feel this invalidates any claim of non-neutrality.
I hold that any creation of a page that does not exist could be said to SUBJECTIVELY involve a certain amount of "original research", although this would really be closer to "fact gathering". There was NO ORIGINAL REASEARCH involved in my creation of this page; everything on it(Kara's basic biographical information, her filmography, her broadcast career, details of her wedding) was a matter of public record. DiScOrD tHe LuNaTiC 12:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The "through conversation with Kara Edwards herself" refers only to the exact date of her wedding. If it makes any difference, I've removed it. Now the ONLY information on the page is from her official webpages or major metropolitan newspaper articles. DiScOrD tHe LuNaTiC 19:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. DS 21:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Listcruft created by a single-purpose account to accomodate Devajyoti Ray's In Despair; should be replaced by the category Category:Indian paintings. Firstly, the title is subjective (no wonder it has been tagged with {{unreferenced}} and {{npov}}). Secondly, the article has been merged into Indian painting. None of the links to the listed paintings actually work. Delete. utcursch | talk 08:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. utcursch | talk 08:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Contested prod for a web forum that doesn't establish notability. Alexa rank is in the 500,000s. — Xezbeth 08:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Previously speedied as advertisement, not improved since recreation Seraphimblade 09:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect. W.marsh 00:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. Insufficiently notable as has done nothing except for exist QuiteUnusual 10:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
This was deleted back in December 2005, and little seems to have changed. Neologism, I couldn't find a single relevant google hit, despite the article's claim that the internet is spreading its popularity. — Xezbeth 10:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Orphan article with multiple breaches of WP:NOT; unencyclopedic. Userfied.. kingboyk 10:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Was correctly tagged for speedy deletion, but the user writing the article has clearly got hold of the wrong end of the wikistick as has spent many hours working on a mix between an article, a wikiproject, a list and a private web page. Because of all that work, there might be something to salvage here. But I don't think so. Opinions? ➨ ЯEDVERS 10:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 22:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
This list has a ridiculous scope: "guitarists for whom there is an article in Wikipedia, or who are mentioned in articles on bands". That's gonna be 100,000 people then? This is redundant to categories and is just clutter. Delete. kingboyk 10:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
I would like to add to this nomination the following related pages:
*
List of musicians and the myriad of other lists branching from this.
All of these (and I'm sure many, many others) suffer from the faults mentioned in the nomination. A list, to be encyclopaedic, must be exhaustive, it must have finite boundaries (e.g. List of the United States, or List of Nobel Peace Prize Laureates) so that every possible item is included. This cannot possibly happen with any of these lists. Delete. Emeraude 10:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge to List of cities in Malta. (There seems to be an argument for merging that article to Malta, so you may want to skip the intermediate step.) Yomangani talk 10:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
The content of the article is already included in other articles. The article is highly unstructured and frankly pointless. Vide talk page of the article. Maltesedog 10:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect is the logical thing here. Guy 12:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Someone suggested this for AFD and I looked it over. It is completely not notable and fails WP:WEB. Since "last measure" is a common phrase and whenever I search google I find it is case insensitive, I searched lastmeasure.com -wikipedia and found 283 google hits, mostly from people spamming the shock site around. It has no media references or anything. It also fails WP:DENY. Anomo 10:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
leave it i kinda like it lol its pretty cool — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
128.193.238.6 (
talk •
contribs) 00:26, 31 October 2006
The result was delete. W.marsh 14:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Utterly non-notable and unverifiable article about the antics of bored teenagers at the CTYI summer camp. Demiurge 11:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Also User:Demiurge look at the CTY page. The have a section on traditions and culture. And if you try and delete that I wouldnt recommend trying it. Exiledone 14:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Punkmorten 23:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Non notable sports event. Contested prod QuiteUnusual 12:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. The article flagrantly violates WP:NOR. The page on the history of Clergy Sexual abuse covers the topic more than well enough. The argument for keeping this article fails to look at policy, argument for deletion is slightly stronger, and yes, I do anticipate a WP:DRV. Yanksox 14:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Fork, linkfarm, author is a single-purpose account with an axe to grind. - CrazyRussian talk/ email 12:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
--Comments by alleged socks-- The following comments were made by recently created accounts with few edits other than to the article in question or this AFD.
email 02:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
WP:BIO - CrazyRussian talk/ email 12:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect back to The Boondocks (TV series) where this character is already mentioned. Concerns about the validity of the info here means I will not merge anything. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
The page has been previously deleted and redirected as shown here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colonel H. Stinkmeaner. As the rationale for that discussion, Stinkmeaner is at best going to be a recurring character (judging by the titles of Season 2) but so far has only appeared in one episode and has never appeared in the comics strip. I vote for redirecting this Boondocks-cruft to The Boondocks (TV series). Gdo01 12:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to The Boondocks (TV series). I'm just adding the tags since I've no idea where to merge it in the target article. - Bobet 21:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
This page is essentially a reopening of Nigga moment which was deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nigga moment but was later redirected. Despite being applicable to many situations, this neologism has not caught on and no sources are given in the article so this falls under Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. As suggested by the previous discussion, I vote for deletion or a redirect. Gdo01 12:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. W.marsh 22:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Can it be said that someone only three years old is an 'actor'? The page on Aaron Aulsebrook-Walker (also an infant appearing in Neighbours) was deleted for just this reason and I don't see Dammer-Smith's case being any different Analog Kid 12:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 02:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
This article was previously deleted through AfD here. A DRV consensus overturned in light of new evidence, for which, see the DRV. This is a procedural relisting, so I abstain. Xoloz 12:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Reason in a nutshell: This is in all likelihood a paid translation of an autobiography of a person with no verifiable accomplishments.
This article appeared on multiple major Wikipedias on the same day in precisely the same form and shape (compare de.wiki, pl.wiki, fr.wiki, hu.wiki, nl.wiki, sk.wiki). Other than de.wiki where the text originated, on some Wikipedias there was a substub on this person prior to that day, but it did not establish the notability of the character other than by having several interwiki links (which is probably how the substub eluded deletion).
On most Wikipedias, the translation appeared as the only major contribution of a new user named Djiggy or IP 84.113.1.108. The author tagged the edit as "translation from german", even though on some Wikipedias, he explicitly said he can't speak the language he supposedly translated the article to (see userboxes: hu:user:Djiggy)
The person described in the article is herself ungooglable, so is her "proper" name ( [29]). It is also impossible to find any references to the international prize she won in Yugoslavia - see here, which makes one wonder how notable could this throphy be.
All in all, it seems like a promotional article of a person that does not seem to have any verifiable claim to notability.
I'm a sysop on pl.wiki, making a guest appearance to share our findings with others. Our AfD for this article is here. lcamtuf 13:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. An astounding ammount of argumentation spun up by one user, but no evidence that the subject actually meets WP:BIO... this article is in question on nearly every Wiki. W.marsh 15:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gal Rasché for a primer on the author before voting.
This is a yet another multiple-Wiki contribution by Djiggy / 84.113.1.108.
This person's notability seems to be impossible to verify (
0 in Google), which is odd for a modern, acclaimed composer of international fame, and a headnoted member of several professional organizations; if you Google for him without the middle name, Anatoli Ivanov yields a couple of film producers and other possibly notable persons, but nothing that would match this bio.
The ISBN referenced in the article seems to be bogus ( [34], [35]).
Update: as noted below in my response to
Djiggy, contrary to his claims, this article was deleted on de.wiki after AfD in January (links below), then he attempted to re-create it (which resulted in speedy deletion, again references below), and the same day finally managed to post it under a different name with one admin deleting it, but restoring it several hours later (with no comment and no talk page entry).
lcamtuf 14:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep for obvious reasons — FireFox ( talk) 14:38, 29 October 2006
Poorly written article about a fictional city that people are led to believe exists. ZERO GOOGLE HITS -- Railer 138 14:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
![]() | This is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Tiger Woods. Please do not modify it. The result was keep. The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. |
The result was delete. W.marsh 22:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Comic fails WP:WEB. Fails to assert notability. -- Brad Beattie (talk) 14:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. W.marsh 00:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
At the very least, non-notable. At the worst, complete bollocks. A Google search returns 616 results, and I think that most of those are due to a book named Boltzmon, which is possibly what the article is based on. A Google Scholar search returns 3 hits, all non-notable. The Arxiv returns nothing. Mike Peel 14:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Yanksox 15:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Hoax. Totally made up nonsense. Iron C hris | (talk) 14:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. W.marsh 14:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Neither verifiable not notable, also fails WP:NFT Demiurge 14:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Exiledone 14:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Exiledone 14:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. W.marsh 17:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Extremely biased, and subject is not very notable. Unfortunately, too notable for me to be comfortable speedy tagging it. Amarkov babble 15:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
This article is about an executive order, the legal details of which are of no particular importance or notability. There are currently relatively few articles about executive orders (full list here: [ [50]]) and those that do exist are about orders of a great deal more significance (domestically and internationally) than this one. This was a very troublesome article for a time, due to the fact that it was based on highly erroneous information, from a disreputable source. Once the facts were established, and all of the POV content was removed, one is left with an article of no particular significance. I suggest, therefore, that it be deleted. Charles 15:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep, no chance of getting this deleted. Punkmorten 18:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
I do not want to be in this encyclopaedia. Sophie Ellis-Bextor 15:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was So, let it be speedied... done. Tawker 21:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable person. No hits on google or other search engines, and the links to the "clubs" are usually links simply to towns, not actual teams JCO312 14:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete, WP:CSD G4. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 02:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Possible original research or hoax. Colbber 15:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
I originally prodded for the article being in Polish. It is not now, so I had to bring this to AfD. Still seems to be useless to me. Amarkov babble 15:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete as non-notable band and recreation of deleted content. Creator should go to Deletion review if he disagrees with the deletion of his article. A ecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 16:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Just some local church band. Self confessed case of WP:AUTO. -- IslaySolomon | talk 16:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Nonnotable; vanity -- 165 google hits for "jewfro.org", 151 not from Wikipedia. The page doesn't cite any of its claims of media attention; it itself says "Strangely, it is quite a feat to find any record of these today", very suspiciously. -- Adam Atlas 16:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The following votes were posted by users who have only made edits related to jewfro.org, and therefore may be sock puppets or single-purpose accounts:
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Disputed ProD. Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. Made up in school one day. Unverified. -- IslaySolomon | talk 16:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Yanksox 14:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
WP:BIO, author is SPA with axe to grind. - CrazyRussian talk/ email 17:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Withdrawn by nominator. ➨ ЯEDVERS 11:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply
WP:BIO, author is SPA with an axe to grind. -
CrazyRussian
talk/
email
17:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result was deleted by Zoe: "No claims of notability". Zetawoof( ζ) 20:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Entry from a non-relevant company, only containing contact information. Sounds like advertising and might meet WP:SPAM dockingman Talk 17:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
This is not a SPAM
This company is becoming a major player in the Fast growing Pharmaceuticals industry of Bangladesh.
Not only in Bangladesh but Internationally.
So it needs to be added to wikipedia.
So it should not be deteted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Miahap ( talk • contribs)
The result was keep. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 06:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
User:Mapletip have requested this article to be deleted with the following reason: Dead software, website, and company. This is a re-nomination, please check the previous entry in here. AQu01rius ( User | Talk | Websites) 18:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was merge into one article, I guess it'll be at Mercedes-Benz Mixed Tapes. - Bobet 22:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Mercedes-Benz is certainly notable, but is everything they do notable by association? These mixtapes are a series of MP3 collections hosted on the company's official site, consisting of — and here's the main problem — songs primarily by unsigned artists. That means it's not particularly useful to list them on Wikipedia, since there's no way to discuss the musicians in any sort of context, since no verifiable sources have really discussed what they've done or influenced in the music world (other than "they submitted their demo tapes to Mercedes-Benz"). (The one notable exception I've found out of the two articles seems to be Tosca from 11.) Also, the past Mixed Tapes aren't even available on the site anymore. Unint 18:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. W.marsh 22:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Superficially a candidate for Wiktionary, only not in this form and not without references. Previously {{ prod}}'d, tag removed without comment. Wikipedia is not a dictionary of Hawaiian slang. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
KEEP IT. its a real word in Hawaii.
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 13:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
non-notable number; see WP:NUMBER; two weak claims are not enough: It's a Fermat number, not a Fermat prime, and there are infinitely many of those. The fact that it's the highest unsigned 2-bit int is already in 10000 (number). Septentrionalis 19:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 13:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Number N = 65535 is a number of the form .
1. How many n < 107 do NOT have this property in common with Number N? If it's too computationally intensive to calculate, a heuristic estimate is acceptable, or even a rough guesstimate. These are the starting points.
9999996 points.
2. Has a professional mathematician written a peer-reviewed paper or book about this property that specifically mentions Number N?
No, at least none that I can find. -4 points.
3. In a list sorted in ascending order, at what position k does Number N occur? Deduct k from Question 2 points.
65535 occurs at position 4. -8 points.
4. Might f(N) = False in a different base b?
5. Does the sequence of numbers with f(N) = True in Sloane's OEIS specifically list Number N in its Sequence or Signed field?
Yes, it's (sequence A051179 in the OEIS). 51171 points.
6. What keywords does the sequence have in its Keywords field?
nonn, easy and nice. 102352 points.
7. How many points are there?
Positive 102352, the property in relation to the number is interesting.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
This is just another arbitrary ranking/list of perceived music quality produced by a media outlet. There is no evidence that anyone finds this list to be authoritative and it will in all likelihood be forgotten in 5 years. youngamerican ( ahoy hoy) 19:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Amateur filmmakers. No assertion of notability. -- RHaworth 19:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. W.marsh 22:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Redundant, unverifiable and possibly in-universe original research. Each of the games already have its own article (as well as an umbrella article) to describe the story. Additionally, plot summaries are prohibited by WP:NOT. Combination 19:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Doesn't seem to meet WP:WEB, WP:V, WP:RS. Flash games hosting sites with no claims of notability and no reliable sources given/found. Delete. Wickethewok 19:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
This article is being proposed for deletion because it fails several criteria in WP:BIO. This is clearly a vanity page. Stangbat 19:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. W.marsh 22:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. Appears to be a boat with little or no historical significance beyond that the creator's grandfather served on board (all respects to him). Stifle ( talk) 19:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. W.marsh 21:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Mod that doesn't seem to particularly notable. Fails WP:V and WP:RS. Delete per lack of reliable sources. Wickethewok 19:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete as a non-notable programme. (aeropagitica) 22:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable programme on Channel 4 and listcruft. tgheretford ( talk) 19:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was löschen. - Mailer Diablo 13:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
seems to be a fake ported from the German Wikipedia Temp0001 19:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Link to German deletion discussion: [54] Temp0001 19:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete as a non-notable musician, WP:Music refers. (aeropagitica) 22:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
non notable artist. Seems self-promotion by that kid (two newly registered users whose only contribs have been creating this article and spamming its name on the Ambient music overview article) -- LimoWreck 20:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Per WP:HOAX, WP:NFT, zero ghits exc Wikipedia mirrors, unverifiable Tubezone 20:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete as a non-notable subject. (aeropagitica) 22:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Article is about a single song, which does not seem to have enough information for its own article. Contested prod. Amarkov babble 20:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. The author can develop and republish the article in a user sub-page when they find more reliable sources in order to reference information contained in the article. (aeropagitica) 22:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
I could not find any information on him, although I'm closer to a weak delete than just regular delete. Contested prod. Amarkov babble 20:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
KEEP Obviously biased but i would really appreciate my early post being kept. I had miniscule info to work with and i've left all the details on the article. If Brett was mentioned online i wouldn't have written this, i thought he made just enough impact to warrant a mention, i don't think it's fair to delete because he isn't in a google search. thanks all the same...please be gentle, suggestions VERY welcome Stuedgar 22:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC) Stuedgar reply
Again the best i can give you is what the text book says, which is New York galleries, nothing on current residence of work. I think he makes it into the text as much for the life story as his output in honesty, but if i don't overstate his importance and I give the solid details i think he is revelant enough for a short mention. No hard feelings if it HAS to go but i'd like it to stay. thanks for the suggestions Emeraude. I'm aware he hasn't had the impact for a mention in google searches but i'd be over the moon for his history to make the transition from text to web via Wikipedia. If anyone else has come across him in their fields or studies, or thinks he is interesting enough as a footnote for a quick mentions please lend your support. Regards— Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuedgar ( talk • contribs)
Apologies, just desperate for him to be online somewhere Stuedgar 11:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC) stuedgar reply
When can i expect a decision/ make a final, desperate plea? Stuedgar 16:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)stuedgar reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Contested speedy... procedural Tawker 21:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Let's look at the sources again:
These are quite mainstream publications for me.-- Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 11:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply
[69] this one is quite a source on Kerry Bolton founder of discussed cult (OLHP is mentioned in the context of his belief system), so the ideology can be sourced now. Same can be said about evolution of OLHP into Black Order [70] -- Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 11:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete as listcruft. (aeropagitica) 22:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
As to whether the scope of the list is too narrow or too broad ( Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Appropriate_topics_for_lists): This list is not a set complement, its criteria being inclusive ("everything with property X") rather than exclusive; and it is not, contrary to what it is stated above by TrackerTV, infinite, since the total number of songs in the world is finite. Wwwwolf's problems with the article lie in whether neologisms constitute nonsense, and are addressed by sidestepping the problem entirely and relying upon sources that have already done the work, such as those previously mentioned, rather than original research by Wikipedia editors that then has to be argued about. Quite a lot of the article can be retained even if all of the entries that cannot currently be sourced are removed, and the sources contain much that isn't already in the article. Maintaining the list is a matter of finding, citing, and using additional sources. Keep. Uncle G 15:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was SPEEDY DELETED Identical text exists at Kirk Jackson, now on AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kirk Jackson.
Exactly 2 ghits for "kirk jackson" "steady state", may have been a co-author on 2 papers on the theory. Seraphimblade 21:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. W.marsh 17:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Non notable person; he was an early settler of Indiana and a soldier, but that's about it. If you look closely, much of the article isn't even about him; his only connection to the murder case, for instance, is that his daughter was a witness. Brianyoumans 21:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete Non-notable. Seems to be full of tangential padding. ALR 20:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
nn writer for local papers Seraphimblade 22:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Supposedly a planned show on HBO. The listed fan site claims HBO has confirmed it, but no such announcement has been made by HBO. Google turns up a handful of hits for a youtube video that has not attracted any attention at all. Looks like vanity. Likely hoax. At minimum, unverifiable, no Reliable Sources Fan-1967 22:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
This smells like a hoax, as the PRODder and the other, agreeing editor both suggest. But I find at [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1724272/posts this] slightly off-the-wall thread from an unreliable source an actual mention of this person. That's the only thing that Google finds, however. Can someone think of a way of working out if this person did actually exist or not? And, if they did, if they need an article? - Splash - tk 22:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Supposed planned Disney Channel movie, starring the Zack and Cody kids, that seems to be totally unknown to everyone else on the web. Sources and Hoax tags removed without comment (and without providing sources. Author has a bad history on this sort of thing. Possible hoax, at minimum unverifiable. Fan-1967 22:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Nonsense vandalism from vandal account. Claims made in the article, such as that he coauthored the steady state theory with Hoyle and Bondi are false. Joke 22:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 21:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Non notable former candidate for Congress, lost his party's primary. Calwatch 22:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus to delete, but adding a tag for references... normally I wouldn't check as closer, but there do seem to be a lot of reliable sources on this guy, they just aren't cited. W.marsh 17:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Was PRODded as "notability", but the article asserts a positive shedload thereof. It might all be trumped-stuff of course, adn there are no links. Just the sort of thing that a keen AfDer might want to dig around for... - Splash - tk 22:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Nomination for deletion Suspected hoax student society article created by single purpose acacount. If it really could be verified, it may be notable for its surviving for so long but I can't find anything on google or google books (it should be expected to be mentioned in tourist guides at least). Never heard of it during my four years at Cam. Bwithh 22:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete as a non-notable student group, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 22:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Nomination for Deletion Non-encyclopedically notable student society which was only established in 2003. Cambridge has a strong comedy tradition, but this just not comparable to the Cambridge Footlights, or equivalents at say, U.Chicago or even Bristol. The original creator of the article has put up an pre-emptive defence of the society here - I encourage people to read it. My rebuttal is that while Cambridge may be famous for comedy, ICE has only beeen around for 3 years and is unlikely to have achieved a remarkable level of fame (if it has, then show us); coverage in student newspapers and stalls at the fresher's fair are not acceptable or credible indicators of encyclopedic notability (and Wikipedia is not a campus info booth). An equivalence is also claimed with the Oxford Imps, but this Dark Blue group appears to be significantly more accomplished than ICE (and I'm not very sure Imps is encyclopedically notable either). Bwithh 22:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
PRODded as "Backup musician with no independent accomplishments. Due to the nature of his work there does not appear to be any reliable sources to provide required verifiability of article contents.", but given the long list of famous names, he must be worth an AfD. I'd caution against notability by osmosis, however. - Splash - tk 22:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Vanity article about losing political candidate. Calwatch 22:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Promotional piece for a book that has only just been released. -- BillC 22:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was null. Articles for deletion is for debating deletion, but the issue here seems to be whether it should be a redirect or not. Take the debate to the talk page. Zetawoof( ζ) 06:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The article had been previously nominated here over a year ago and the vote was closed as a "merge and redirect". Since then, apparently the article has continued on until User:A Man In Black reverted the article to a redirect to Street Fighter III. I personally feel that a redirect is neither sufficient nor informative; Q is a playable character only in "3rd Strike", and he is not a hidden, unlockable or secret character. My vote is Strong Keep. Danny Lilithborne 23:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete as a non-notable website, WP:WEB refers. (aeropagitica) 22:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable forum/website; fails WP:WEB. The article claims that it was popular in the past, though it has no references or proof of such notability, and the current state of the website suggests that it is incredibly non-notable. --- RockMFR 23:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
2C2 It appears that you do not have Java enabled in your browser's configuration. Please enable Java, then reload this page. If you do have java enabled and still are receiving this page, please click which browser you are using to enter Cybertown. Netscape version 4.0 or later Internet Explorer version 4.0 or later Other
That's what I got. Won't even work with Javascript disabled. Obvously not notable if they can't even get their site to work. Anomo 12:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete as Listcruft. (aeropagitica) 22:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 22:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Notable but adequately covered in Access control list, not good candidate for merge/redirect. Seraphimblade 23:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Proto:: type 12:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Note: This article has had a previous AfD discussion, which can be found here.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
User:J intela, a 15 year old who claims to be "unrivaled in all arias of Sciance and Social studies," created this article for original research that he was unable to add at List of dictators, introducing the very problems the editors at that list have tried very hard to avoid. For example, his claim that Cypselus was the first dictator of all time, although without explanation he has now discovered an earlier one. The list largely repeats List of ancient Greek tyrants, but also includes some medieval Italians for no apparent reasons.
Historians do not generally use the term "dictator" for people who governed before the Atlantic Revolutions. Prior to that autocratic leaders were the norm, and any attempt to list such leaders would include nearly all of them.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable. Article created 18 May 2006, tagged for expansion 6 August 2006 - no development. Imperial College website staff directory lists him as a Research Assistant, [72] and his own website [73] confirms he's a "post-doctoral researcher ", so not notable. Emeraude 00:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 17:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
"British film" is a subjective term (does it refer to the company, initial release location, writer, director, actors?). That means that the best you can do is list these as comedies, which shouldn't be a list at all because it is too broad. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_British_comedy_films for a similar debate. Stellis 00:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. Subject is not notable, autobiography. Person, companies, and achievements all appear non-notable. - Malfoyl 00:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply